As a parent you hold a moral obligation to act and make decisions that are the best for your child’s health and safety. Where the issue lies is, the average person does not have a medical background and can base their choices on unreliable aspects. In Emily K. Brunson and Elisa J. Sobo’s article, ‘Framing Childhood Vaccination in the United States: Getting Past Polarization in the Public Discourse’ published in Human Organization; Oklahoma City in 2017, they discuss the parents perception and how acknowledging that their view points are more complex than just a two sided arguments categorized into ‘pro’ and ‘anti’ will help increase the declining vaccination rates.
After reading Brunson and Sobo’s article I agree that there is a multidimensional viewpoint on vaccinations that can depend on multiple factors, but I have mixed opinions on parents basing the risk and reward of vaccinations on their own rather than consulting medical professionals and looking into their data and analysis of what is best for their child, and I agree that parents decisions can change over time.
Brunson and Sobo begin by addressing the issue caused by viewing vaccinations as a two-sided argument. They then proceed to clarify that vaccines, while not being 100 percent risk free, are very effective and that the majority of likely risks are very small compared to the benefits. Brunson and Sobo then explain that there are many reasons a parent would not want their kid vaccinated, and that many reasons were not due to professional advice, rather a social issue guides mothers opinions.
127 our experts are availableright now
To back this up Brunson and Sobo then provide the introduction to their research. They used three different locations on the east coast with varying demographics. They found that there were a wide variety of reasons that the parents were either for, against, or a combination of both, but no matter the parents stance they answered that they believe is the best for their child. Brunson and Sobo go on to show that a big factor in the parent’s decision are multiple different types of risk. Then they introduce the social effects on parent’s choices and the opposite where parents were making their own choice without regards to their peers.
For all of the reasoning’s, Brunson and Sobo provide real parents thoughts from the interviews conducted. Parents though, do change their opinions based on experience and newfound knowledge as mentioned by Brunson and Sobo. They conclude the article by reinstating the importance of dismantling the belief that the controversy of vaccination is a two sided argument and that dissecting the different and or circumstantial reasoning’s is the best way to relate to both sides to improve vaccination rates.
I agree with the main premise that Brunson and Sobo convey in the article which is that the ideology of vaccination being an all for, or all against view point like many people make it seem to be is the incorrect way of looking at the controversy. Rather an approach should be focused on a spectrum that looks at different variables because as Brunson and Sobo state, ‘…there are many vaccines, many VPD, and many types of children…’ (Brunson and Sobo 46).
Accepting the fact that multiple variables take place in the decision making process by healthcare providers and patients proves that holding a one sided opinion is almost impossible. This is supported by Brunson and Sobo mentioning that ‘concordance was virtually non-existent'(Brunson and Sobo 45) in their research of interviewing the parents. For example, I am the uncle of two beautiful children. My nephew, the younger of the two has multiple allergies while his older sister has none. Thankfully none of his allergies interfere with vaccinations but they were of course taken into consideration, and still are when new medicine is being administered to him.
However if he did have an allergy that did not allow him to be vaccinated, then yes I would be against vaccines for that particular hypothetical case instead of being against it as a whole. Many different things also play a factor on whether a child should be vaccinated like if the child had a weak immune system. All these factors though, I believe should have to be confirmed by a medical professional. This applies to everyone, regardless of how they view vaccination. The average person does not have a medical background strong enough to truly decided on their own.
However, I do support that the parents should always be cautions when it comes to their kids. Where the problem lies is when, as mentioned before, the parents think that their judgement based on risk and reward of vaccination is greater than the physicians. After Brunson and Sobo interviewed parents, they found a common belief and stated, “Given the low prevalence of VPD in the United States, these parents believed that while being exposed to a VPD was perhaps a slim possibility, accepting vaccination entailed a definite exposure to a possible harm”(Brunson and Sobo 43). This is one of, if not the most hypocritical viewpoints stated in the article.
The reasoning behind having such low chances of getting a disease, is because of the same vaccinations these parents seem to be against. Another irresponsible claim parents hold is waiting to give the vaccine when they already know that they eventually will and have no reasoning to wait. When asked parented told Brunson and Sobo, “If an outbreak happens, ill get him the vaccine, but for now I’m going to wait until he’s older for that one.”(Brunson and Sobo 45) Waiting for an outbreak is very dangerous, and waiting till he is older, even after a physician has confirmed that the child is old enough, is very reckless at the least in my opinion.
Finally, I’d like to address the point made by Brunson and Sobo, that “Some parents in our studies even acknowledged that their decisions had changed and/or would change over time.” (Brunson and Sobo 45) This is a point we should focus on to improve vaccination rates. I think a major issue is how easily accessible false information is on the internet. Healthcare providers should have a more personal and direct open approach when dealing with questions or issues the parents may face instead of giving broad answers.
Since vaccination has become such a controversy, it is rarely talked about. The multiple high school health classes I’ve taken all covered major issues in our society, such as STDs and obesity, yet even when talking to the class about parenthood and taking care of your child the teachers would never touch the topic of vaccination in their lectures. Neither side of the argument should be hostile to one another, many people who vaccinate look down on those who don’t. A less derogatory view would help ease the tension, and a civil exchange of ideologies and viewpoints would help correct any misinformation people may have. Yet some people, no matter the effort just will never change their minds and we just must accept that and make sure our own kids are vaccinated and safe.
Vaccination, an intricate issue is not a two-side debate, we should look at all the reasonings behind parents’ beliefs and provide them with all the correct information they need, so they do not feel as if they should base their choice on their own without the consultation of a medical professional, since parents’ thoughts and opinions are susceptible to change. Viewing this as a “pro” and “anti” debate between people causes drama between people and makes it hard to communicate a message. Not consulting physicians is a ridiculous way of going about things since these people dedicate their lives to helping others. Both two statements come together to play a role in the most important of this essay, that people’s opinions change. So we should all work towards having a safe, and reliable environment between each other and between our health care providers to move forward and increase vaccination rates as much as possible while keeping our kids healthy.
